The tampering floodgates could be opening.

On the same day that the NFL nailed the Niners for talking to Bears linebacker Lance Briggs without formal authorization while the two teams were talking about a possible trade of the Pro Bowler, Kansas City Chiefs coach Herm Edwards bemoaned the fact that his team’s effort to sign a couple of coveted free agents was hampered by the fact that other teams apparently had an improper head start.

Regarding the Chiefs’ inability to acquire guys like center Jeff Faine (who signed with the Bucs on the first day of free agency) and kicker Josh Brown (who landed quickly with the Rams), Edwards said, “There were probably some deals done before [the launch of free agency].  We didn’t cheat.  We abided by the rules.  That’s how you’re supposed to do it, and that’s what we did.”

Implicit in Edwards’ remarks is that the Bucs and Rams did cheat. 

And though the tampering rules as currently drafted prevent the league from taking action absent a complaint from the team to whom the tampered-with player belonged, Edwards’ remarks prove that there really isn’t only one victim when tampering occurs.  In the cases of Faine and Brown, the Chiefs (and possibly other teams) lost out when they didn’t get a fair shot at pursuing the players.

Of course, the Chiefs were victims under this formula only if they were one of the rare teams (if there even are any) who refuse to engage in the pre-free agency discussions that allow agents to outline the contours of the market.  Indeed, Faine wouldn’t have signed with the Bucs on day one and Brown wouldn’t inked with the Rams if either player’s agent thought that more money would be available elsewhere.  The fact that deals can be signed so quickly with one team means that discussions with multiple teams preceded the finalization of the contracts.

The irony of Edwards’ remarks is that his leap from the Jets to the Chiefs a couple of years ago occurred under circumstances that could cause a reasonable person to believe that discussions were occurring between Edwards and Chiefs G.M. Carl Peterson while Edwards was still the property of the Jets.  So it’s possible that the Chiefs’ chief is speaking with forked tongue when it comes to whether or not they cheated.  The truth could be that they simply didn’t cheat as effectively as the Bucs and Rams did.

And that’s the point we keep coming back to.  They all cheat.  They all tamper.  Everyone wants to get an edge, because the NFL is the ultimate zero-sum game in which for every winning team there necessarily is a losing team, and the folks who work in the football operations of the losing teams are in jeopardy of losing their jobs.

So if the NFL is going to hammer the Niners for making two phone calls of unknown content to an agent who represents a lot more players than Lance Briggs and if that standard is going to be applied to every other team, then every other team should lose one or more draft picks.

The other possibility is that the 49ers were sacrificed by the league in order to demonstrate to folks like Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) that the NFL is willing and able to enforce its rules.  But if those rules aren’t going to be enforced fairly and equally, it would be better not to enforce them.

Under such circumstances, it would be even better to not have rules at all.